Vicipaedia:Taberna

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Compendium:
VP:T
Hic colloqui possumus.

MMXXII[fontem recensere]

Spectaculum pyrotechnicum Suebicum

Annum faustum, felicem, fortunatumque vobis omnibus precor! Legamus, scribamus, gaudeamus! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:44, 1 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta omnia tibi ceterisque Vicipaedianis. Proposito tuo subscribo.--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 15:53, 1 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia:Pellicula mensis[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Habemus Vicipaedia:Pellicula mensis (gratias @UV: et elegi pelliculas per 2022. Estne bene hoc uti in pagina prima? --JimKillock (disputatio) 17:23, 3 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cur non? Anno novo quoddam novum faciamus. — Paginae primae columna prima nunc brevissima est, ibi pellicula inseri potest. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:29, 3 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bene, quis ergo possit paginam primam emendare? @UV: fortasse? --JimKillock (disputatio) 22:52, 5 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nemine contradicente pelliculas mensium in paginam primam inserui. --UV (disputatio) 21:04, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi @UV:! --JimKillock (disputatio) 16:55, 9 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rogationem de annorum[fontem recensere]

Habemus rogationem de hoc commons:TimedText:Uruk,_erste_Metropole_der_Weltgeschichte_(CC_BY_4.0).webm.la.srt: Ibi quattuor milia [annos / annorum?] ante Christum natum prima urbs post hominum memoriam condita est. Utitur annos aut annorum? --JimKillock (disputatio) 16:57, 9 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post milia annorum melius. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:05, 10 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ling formula[fontem recensere]

Should languages named by the ling formula be adverbs or nouns? We notice that in "Lingua Scotica (Gadelica)," editor 2804:1054:3014:fde0:f045:7592:d7f5:8331 has changed {{ling|Scotice|Anglice}} to {{ling|Scotica|Anglica}} overnight. We notice also that the formula is given as {{Ling|Lingua Italiana{{!}}Italiane}} in "Runcus Genuensium." What's the most appropriate way of coding this kind of information? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paginas de linguis Scotiae nunc semi-protexi. Editor anonymus, linguae Latinae expers, nomina linguarum in paginis de Scotia inutiliter mutat.
Scribimus e.g. de nexu externo monolingui {{Ling|Anglice}}; de nexu bilingui {{Ling|Anglice|Francogallice}}, etc.
UVbot interdum e.g. {{Ling|Anglice}} in {{Ling|Lingua Anglica{{!}}Anglice}} mutat: haec mutatio in facie paginae non videtur. Nobis neque expansionem ab UVbot factam imitare, neque revertere, necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:06, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De pagina prima[fontem recensere]

When you visit our Vicipaedia:Pagina prima from today on (and you are logged in), you may notice that Vicipaedia now will greet you using your username ;-)

(You might beforehand need to reload the page, shift-reload the page and/or clear your browser cache to see the effect.)

This greeting is a (hopefully pleasant) side-effect of me today adapting the top of our Vicipaedia:Pagina prima to make sure everything will still work in the future: Possibly, the MediaWiki software developers will, within a few weeks or months, add a “Sticky Header” near the top of the page may put some useful controls onto the same line as the article title. For this to work smoothly in the future, I have today removed our custom main page heading and re-enabled the standard one.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but the gadget doesn't know the vocative case. Of course, vocative is not needed for all nicknames, but for those that are needed, is it possible to specify a form somewhere? To change the ending -us to -e and -ius to -i. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 03:15, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I have tried to include a manual workaround for the vocative case (see the source code of MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin/vocative) – does it work now? If anyone else prefers a greeting in the vocative case on our pagina prima as well, do tell me and I will add your username to MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin/vocative. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:18, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Now it really makes an impression. — It seems to me, also Bis-Taurinus (one of those who often edits — and always corrects errors). And IacobusAmor — what about the space, it's unclear, maybe he will say. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:35, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, I have added the two. If anyone prefers it some other way, please tell me! --UV (disputatio) 22:42, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De UVbot[fontem recensere]

Hodie in capsa editoria rei "Percy Liza," 190.237.93.100, editor ignotus, nobis dicit UVbot "is misbehaving or if there is just the slightest suspicion that the bot might be malfunctioning, please block it." Re vera? UVbot indecore se gerit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UVbot «non annexa» formulam posuit et recte omnia fecit, nam non annexa est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:11, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could indeed happen that (a) I make a mistake while operating UVbot (nobody is perfect) or (b) there is a technical problem that causes UVbot to malfunction. If such a situation occurs, I invite everyone to raise the issue here in the Taberna or on my user talk page; and if the bot is still running and doing more harm, I invite every admin to block UVbot at sight. In the case at hand, I believe that UVbot did neither misbehave nor malfunction. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:06, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Noster 190.237.93.100, editor ignotus, appears to be under the impression that the "Pagina non annexa" formula shouldn't be applied to pages lacking an incoming link, or at least to "Percy Liza." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:17, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last of those :) To put it in context, 190.237.93.100 has been spreading this footballer across many Wikipedias. The Latin page was just about acceptable as a start so we didn't delete it. 190.237.93.100 prefers the page not to have any templates on it, and has learned that bots can conveniently be accused of malfunctioning. It's up to us how we deal with such messages, taking due account of their origin.
As for the page, the text is far too short to be useful. If anyone wants to improve it and add an incoming link somewhere, great: if not, I suspect it will eventually be deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:20, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae desideratae[fontem recensere]

Fortasse noster Usor:Klein Muçi or some other kind programmer would like to make the formulas printing nakedly in red under "De nominibus hodiernis" here work. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, LaWiki was completely lacking technical foreign language support. I found myself in a rabbit hole where each module required 10 other modules to be imported so it worked. After 87 imports of modules and templates (my hands literally hurt :P ), the situation should be better. Unfortunately that is not the complete list of templates (the complete list requires +200 other templates to cover almost all the languages and scripts of the world) and some of the already imported templates may require further fine-tuning to be translated in Latin (that's actually easy to do) but I did what was needed to solve the current, immediate, problem I believe. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 14:14, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Macte! Multas gratias tibi ago! Such labor! Who knew? Bravo! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the name of the language must be Latin, "Graece" and not "Greek" etc.; "romanized" — "litteris Latinis"? "Listen" — "audias" etc. Or is it easier to rewrite a paragraph without formulas. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:31, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I do. I don't know what benefit the templates offer. But all praise to Klein Muçi for doing the work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Demetrius Talpa, please, take a look at Module:Lang/data. You'll see a long list in red. The right part (the one in quotation marks, after the equals mark) is the part that needs to be translated for 90% of those cases you're referring to. Can you do that for me? I'll take care for the remaining ones in the end or fix any errors that might arise.
@Andrew Dalby, to put it very simply, some computers are dumb when you offer them different languages or different scripts and they don't know how to render them and they may end up rendering question marks or other similar symbols instead. The work I did gives them metadata (data/information about the data they're reading) so they know what they're reading and therefore how to render them. That + some templates so they (computers) know how to render the IPA symbols. The problem is that, as I said, there are many languages and scripts in the world and each have their own templates so, of course, there are a lot lacking currently. I only imported the basic ones needed for the system to work and the ones that were needed in that specific article.
How much IPA is needed here... That does require a discussion on its own. My vague idea is that given that IPA is universal per se, can be utilized everywhere but I'm not an expert on linguistics, let alone phonology. If you say that it is not needed, we can remove some templates related to IPA while keeping the other ones that help computers render text better. Even though I'd propose to wait a bit before acting, maybe that proves useful.
Thanks to everyone for the good words! :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:41, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Klein Muçi. I agree with you about IPA: it is international and acceptable, it is sometimes useful, but (since our focus is written Latin) IPA pronunciations of foreign names may not be truly useful in every case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for editing the list of languages — I don't know, I'm not sure that these templates will be used; maybe one day.
And about the display of rare alphabets — now almost everything is displayed almost everywhere (thank you, Unicode), and when squares or question marks are visible, then the problem is in the user's device, and not in the template; I recently had a case with the Avestan alphabet — on one machine you can see even without a template, and on the other, and through the [undefined] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) template, it's still squares. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:19, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Demetrius Talpa, the template you mentioned didn't exist in here. Just imported it. (You'll see that now it generates an error because it has no text defined, just the template itself.) Can you tell me more about the case you were talking about in there? Not an expert on this subject as I said (I've only dealt with this phenomenon briefly in the past) but maybe I'm able to help. And well done on the string translations! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:20, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted those adverbia that I could; we don’t have articles about the rest and I don’t want to invent on the go. - About Avestan - I was talking about Russian Wikipedia, and the case is the same in in English. Android and Linux shows Avestan even without a template, Windows even with template don't shows. These templates made sense around 2005, now it seems to me that they can (or should) also be eliminated in large wikipedias, they stand by inertia. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:13, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same impression as Demetrius when I looked at the use of these templates on en:wiki a while back and the long discussions about them over there. They surely seemed a good idea when invented but their real value may be small, and the more templates you see in the edit screen, the less you want to edit it. I quote from far above: "is it easier to rewrite a paragraph without formulas?" Yes, it could be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]